Are you voting for Obama?

[Terz]

I will be legal voting age this election, and I am definately voting for Obama? Anyone else and why?

[WonsAuto]

It certainly looks that way. I don't think we can really say for sure who will get our vote at the end of 2008, because you just never know what could happen. But if the election were, say, tomorrow, he most definitely would get my vote.

[Axe&Hammer]

He doesn't have enough experience to hold office.

[GarnetandBlack]

Right now, I am swaying towards Giuliani....

[Rynoboy]

If I was at legal voting age I would vote for Clinton or not vote because you do not directly vote for the President the electoral college does.

[ryanworldleader]

No. If i was old enough, it would be McCain. He has the experience, served our country, and could handle any terrorist attacks since he has seen combat.

I beleive combat is an addition that not many candidates can say they have seen.

I am a die hard republican, and no I dont support amnesty, those mexican aliens cut in line in front of people who wait legaly.

And the democrats want to just give them amnesty?!:suspect: Those could be lethal terrorists getting amnesty.

Amnesty is a new threat that willl lead to terrorists getting citizenship.

What world are the Democrats from??

[MikeAaronB]

He won't go anywhere in this election. He's black.

[Behemoko]

No. If i was old enough, it would be McCain. He has the experience, served our country, and could handle any terrorist attacks since he has seen combat.

I beleive combat is an addition that not many candidates can say they have seen.

I am a die hard republican, and no I dont support amnesty, those aliens cut in line in front of people who wait legaly.

And the democrats want to just give them amnesty?!:suspect: Those could be lethal terrorists getting amnesty.

Amnesty is a new threat that willl lead to terrorists getting citizenship.

What world are the Democrats from??

Well, I was a bit worried by your post, until.. I saw you were 12 :roll: At least you wont be voting for president for a while, lol! :lol: thankfully, you are given the time to grow up, and realize that democrats aren't aliens, and although called aliens, illegal immigrants aren't really aliens either. And, BTW, at least get your facts straight.. There are levels between and beyond the 2 sides, you don't have to just be straightforward Republican or Democrat. I am in between, and tend to lean more towards democratic decisions (took a test, and agreed with democrats 70% of the time, and Republicans the other 30% of the time), but Amnesty isn't one of them, unless there is a VERY good reason.

[MrFenwick]

I don't vote. I am neutral.

[L0ST]

No im not voting for Osama..i mean Obama :)

[Firefox]

If I was at legal voting age I would vote for Clinton or not vote because you do not directly vote for the President the electoral college does.

Do you know the true Hillary? :confused: I would rather have a hobo running America
than her.

Obama All the way!
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/frontpage/images/obama_as_superman.jpg
http://media1.suntimes.com/nixoncds/image/20060817_20_03_22_6-282-400.imageContent

[Fedos]

This should be in the Politics discussion.

[Vulgotha]

Good to see there is some common sense around here. Reflects itself in the poll:

13-NO
8-YES


Frankly Obama terrifies me. But Hilary is worse.

There is no way I'm going to give the left control of both Congress and the white house. Thats just scary.

I mean holy crap, they're already trying to re-install the "Fairness Doctorine". They've also attempted at upping the minimum wage by a buck. BAD idea. Economy is not helped by this, its a command solution to a market economy. Gov't should rarely if EVER intervene.

But, such are socialistic politics. *shrugs*. <Those of you that are educated, can figure out why I mean by that.>

For those of us who are educated, you realize how freakishly scary all the above truly is.


(If he runs) Fred Thompson has my vote. Goes without saying that he's a conservative.

[Eraser.]

He won't go anywhere in this election. He's black.
Hes half black.


I like McCain. McCain crosses partisan lines to get the job done effectively and to do whats best: thats what good presidents do. But I wont be voting for McCain. I saw his views on Iraq and it was absolutely disgusting. Republicans seems to have adopted the "if we leave we lost" ideology. Well, we did lose, so we might as well get the hell out of there before we make things worse. But thats a whole different discussion.

I haven't looked into Obama much, but he and Hilary both seem to be popular with Americans. Hilary is to far left for me, so Ill probably end up sticking with Obama.

Romney is also not a bad choice for a conservative, I just dont like how hes downplaying his role in statewide healthcare. I dont see why helping poor people is seen as such a stigma for conservatives, even when its privatized!

[Vulgotha]

Hes half black.


I like McCain. McCain crosses partisan lines to get the job done effectively and to do whats best: thats what good presidents do. But I wont be voting for McCain. I saw his views on Iraq and it was absolutely disgusting. Republicans seems to have adopted the "if we leave we lost" ideology. Well, we did lose, so we might as well get the hell out of there before we make things worse. But thats a whole different discussion.

I haven't looked into Obama much, but he and Hilary both seem to be popular with Americans. Hilary is to far left for me, so Ill probably end up sticking with Obama.

Romney is also not a bad choice for a conservative, I just dont like how hes downplaying his role in statewide healthcare. I dont see why helping poor people is seen as such a stigma for conservatives, even when its privatized!


The question is not "What causes Poverty?" but rather "What causes wealth?".

To help the poor, you help the rich. Why? Because no one has ever worked for a poor man.

What do the ultra rich do? They create businesses or own them. Now, who works under them? the common folk.

And by taxing the crap out of those "Mean rich people" your only encouraging them NOT to hire due to revenue loss. By allowing the rich to do what they do best, the economy will sore, and the poor will have jobs.

Its really as simple as that. Its what it boils down to.

But, when a Command Solution is used to rectify a MARKET problem, we only get a mess. Never once, has taxing the rich helped the poor. Unless you count all those degenerative leeches on welfare.

Yea, I'm a hardliner.

[hoverbike]

If I was an American, I would definately be voting for Ron Paul all the way.

[Axe&Hammer]

No. If i was old enough, it would be McCain. He has the experience, served our country, and could handle any terrorist attacks since he has seen combat.

I beleive combat is an addition that not many candidates can say they have seen.

I am a die hard republican, and no I dont support amnesty, those aliens cut in line in front of people who wait legaly.

And the democrats want to just give them amnesty?!:suspect: Those could be lethal terrorists getting amnesty.

Amnesty is a new threat that willl lead to terrorists getting citizenship.

What world are the Democrats from??

Bad little boy!!!

....stop it....stop it your giving republicans a bad rep:?:cry:

[WonsAuto]

Bad little boy!!!

....stop it....stop it your giving republicans a bad rep:?:cry:

:lol:


Vulgotha: So just because the rich anchor our economy, as you imply, they should be exempt from paying a proportionate amount of taxes? C'mon, give me a break. I have an ultra-Republican friend that has almost identical political views as yours, but sheesh.

[jakncoke]

Im not into politics so I dont really know, but I doubt I'll vote for him or any other person for that matter. The only way id vote is if the other candidate was against video games and wanted to do some crazy stuff like what Germans do. Is there any like that ?

[DayWalker]

Obama/Edwards = winning combo.

Vulgotha??? How can it be any scarier than what the right has done with both branched the last 6 years???

Frankly this is the weakest set of candidates the right has ahd in a long time, and the opposite for the left.

If the Dems can't win then they should just dissolve the party.

[Vulgotha]

Obama/Edwards = winning combo.

Vulgotha??? How can it be any scarier than what the right has done with both branched the last 6 years???

Frankly this is the weakest set of candidates the right has ahd in a long time, and the opposite for the left.

If the Dems can't win then they should just dissolve the party.


Liberals and their ideals frighten me. They're borderline socialists.

[WonsAuto]

Liberals and their ideals frighten me. They're borderline socialists.


CONSERVATIVES: Liberals are socialists!
LIBERALS: Conservatives are fascists!
ME: You're all tools. (slaps everyone present)

[DayWalker]

Liberals and their ideals frighten me. They're borderline socialists.

and conservatives/evangelicals are borderline fascists/ religious-terrorist-extremist :roll:

Really??? The last 6 years were adequate enough for you???

And for the record:
Socialism is not an evil thing. :shock: Yes I said it :lol:
The idea that everyone should work for the betterment of society can hardly be deemed as evil. it just doesn't work. People suck and are lazy, greedy, envious, etc.

Now communism (a branch or interpretation of socialism) is a whole different animal...

Don't get me wrong, i am capitalism all the way hooray...
But that doesn't mean certain aspects of our society can't be reformed... healthcare ahem... ;) Yes I said it!!!! :lol:


edit
for the record I said I would vote for Obama but I am actually going to wait until the candidates develop their platforms.
I think Hilary would do a good job but she is much too divisive on some subjects. I'd like to see a candiate that reunited the country after this 8 year horror story.

I won't vote for Gore (if he were to run) simply b/c I blame him for allowing us to get to where we are now. SOB couldn't even win his won state and somehow let Dubya get into the white house :roll:

[Eraser.]

The question is not "What causes Poverty?" but rather "What causes wealth?".

To help the poor, you help the rich. Why? Because no one has ever worked for a poor man.

What do the ultra rich do? They create businesses or own them. Now, who works under them? the common folk.

And by taxing the crap out of those "Mean rich people" your only encouraging them NOT to hire due to revenue loss. By allowing the rich to do what they do best, the economy will sore, and the poor will have jobs.

Its really as simple as that. Its what it boils down to.

But, when a Command Solution is used to rectify a MARKET problem, we only get a mess. Never once, has taxing the rich helped the poor. Unless you count all those degenerative leeches on welfare.

Yea, I'm a hardliner.

In theory that should work, but it doesnt. Most rich put money in the stock market or in bonds isntead of expanding their business. Afterall, why innovate and make products cheaper if its only going to make you less money?

[gungravezero14]

no way, he has too little experience with respect to diplomacy abroad and at home.......his policies are quite vague and voting for him is throwing away one's vote.................

[DayWalker]

In theory that should work, but it doesnt. Most rich put money in the stock market or in bonds isntead of expanding their business. Afterall, why innovate and make products cheaper if its only going to make you less money?

exactly... not to mention some poor people aren't qualified to work for rich people b/c they went to run down, under funded schools.

Rich people hoard, they don't share. It would be nice if they did- but they don't. They do whatever they can to keep/add to their own ridiculous wealth.

giving tax breaks to the top 2% doesn't help Joe Shmoe. It helps Bill gates tons though.

It capitalism it is every man for himself, which leaves a lot of people SOL for reasons out of their control (sometimes). People are greedy and self serving, which is why we have taxes in the first place. Our country couldn't do anything if we didn't force people to add to the pot...

Look at the abolishment of slavery and creation of civil rights. None of that stuff would have happened if had let individuals decide for themselves who qualifies to be treated as an equal. The federal government had to come in a force people do what was right because they sure as hell weren't getting the message quick enough. This isn't all that different...

no way, he has too little experience with respect to diplomacy abroad and at home.......his policies are quite vague and voting for him is throwing away one's vote.................

and Dubya's experience at home and abroad served him well???
it's too early to be divulging your platform- especially with the republican smear co as it is...
they'll take whatever he stands for (liberty for example) and turn it into a "message of hate"

I'm glad Obama is chillin for the moment.

[Vulgotha]

In theory that should work, but it doesnt. Most rich put money in the stock market or in bonds isntead of expanding their business. Afterall, why innovate and make products cheaper if its only going to make you less money?


In theory, if you look at our history, its never been fully tried. Thanks to FDR and the programs he set up.

Its been dabbled in (and with each time success) but never has anyone gone full fledge at it like they have with these worthless Welfare programs.


And welfare is just that, worthless.


run down, under funded schools? Our schools have crap loads of money pumped into them. Its the government's response to everything: Throw money at it. It'll work.


Yea right, I'm not so dead set agaisnt JApan's version of education: All of them are Privately owned.

Seems to be working for them pretty well, and you don't get everyone dragged down with "Political Correctness" and other ridiculious Government mandates.

Tax cuts do help the poor if given to the rich, especially those who own big businesses. there is simply no way around that fact.

Now our liberal friends are always about "Taxing the wealthy" to help the poor. In a Robin Hood like fashion. thats just stupid. It doesn't work.

All that money gets guzzled down into social programs, that are completely infested with lowlifes and bums that do not contribute to our society.

A good portion of those, being illegals. It makes me sick.


Alot of what your saying Daywalker sounds Conservative\Libritarian. I'm a firm believer that the government should get their hands away from all business and income.

I think we should go to a pure sales tax. It would boost our economy AND help deal with the illegal immigrants.

they ahve to buy food and clothing to live y'know.

[Axe&Hammer]

Rich people hoard, they don't share. It would be nice if they did- but they don't. They do whatever they can to keep/add to their own ridiculous wealth.
The Rich invest,middle class buys,lower class works


capitalism and democracy,except no substitutes

[DayWalker]

In theory, if you look at our history, its never been fully tried. Thanks to FDR and the programs he set up.

Its been dabbled in (and with each time success) but never has anyone gone full fledge at it like they have with these worthless Welfare programs.


And welfare is just that, worthless.

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face...
Flawed? definitely. Worthless? absolutely not.

Just ask some of the single mothers of the world...

In theory, if you look at our history, its never been fully tried. Thanks to FDR and the programs he set up.

Its been dabbled in (and with each time success) but never has anyone gone full fledge at it like they have with these worthless Welfare programs.


And welfare is just that, worthless.


run down, under funded schools? Our schools have crap loads of money pumped into them. Its the government's response to everything: Throw money at it. It'll work.


Yea right, I'm not so dead set agaisnt JApan's version of education: All of them are Privately owned.

Seems to be working for them pretty well, and you don't get everyone dragged down with "Political Correctness" and other ridiculious Government mandates.

Tax cuts do help the poor if given to the rich, especially those who own big businesses. there is simply no way around that fact.

Now our liberal friends are always about "Taxing the wealthy" to help the poor. In a Robin Hood like fashion. thats just stupid. It doesn't work.

All that money gets guzzled down into social programs, that are completely infested with lowlifes and bums that do not contribute to our society.

A good portion of those, being illegals. It makes me sick.

Mandated PC??? You mean like not forcing everyone to pray every morning and after every meal? I think we'll survive ;)

Over taxing the rich is one idea- not giving them tax cuts is another.
You don't have less responsibilites or obligations to the country that allows you to be successful just because you're loaded.

Why Paris Hilton warrants a tax cut and Joe Shmoe doesn't is mind boggling.

[Vulgotha]

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face...
Flawed? definitely. Worthless? absolutely not.

Just ask some of the single mothers of the world...



Mandated PC??? You mean like not forcing everyone to pray every morning and after every meal? I think we'll survive ;)

Over taxing the rich is one idea- not giving them tax cuts is another.
You don't have less responsibilites or obligations to the country that allows you to be successful just because you're loaded.

Why Paris Hilton warrants a tax cut and Joe Shmoe doesn't is mind boggling.

Its worthless.Just ask the hordes of illegal immigrants leeching off it.

Fact is: its overhead cost makes it impractical. Its not beneficial, its the Government intruding on private matters. thats not capitalism, its socialism by definition.

It didn't work with the USSR, it won't work here.

[DayWalker]

Its worthless.Just ask the hordes of illegal immigrants leeching off it.

Fact is: its overhead cost makes it impractical. Its not beneficial, its the Government intruding on private matters. thats not capitalism, its socialism by definition.

It didn't work with the USSR, it won't work here.

:suspect:

so shouldn't we reform immigration and border control then???
why get rid of welfare b/c those two things are ****ed up?
Like I said: flawed not worthless.
and again- communism and socialism not the same ;)

[Vulgotha]

:suspect:

so shouldn't we reform immigration and border control???
and again- communism and socialism not the same ;)

If you want the literal definition of communism, all it is, is the end result of socialism.

"To Commune" Communism. Its equivelent to Anarchy. There is no government, everyone lives in Harmony, Utopia.

Nowadays, of course, the definition has changed.

Socialism is merely the process and steps that lead to that end result. typically involving the economy.

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic) system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#_note-0) This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_councils)—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system), socialism is often characterized by state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) or worker ownership of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production)."



Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classlessness), stateless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State#Marxism) social organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_organization) based on common ownership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership) of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production). It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)



As you can see, there is very little differance between the two. One is the Economic structure of an ideal, and one is the ideal of the economic structure.


Ironically enough, Communism is not what it was originally intended to be. Originally (as stated above) Marx envisioned a land\world where there was no central authority, everyone lived perfectly with one another.

but how to get to this ultimate goal? Simple: Have a overarching central authority that would slowly guide and mold the minds of the people to this desired end.

Sadly Marx failed to understand the characer of man. Once we have power, we do not want to let go.

Additionally it is agaisnt mans nature to co exist with his fellow man without rules or boundaries which enforce him to do so.



So you can draw "X" amount of lines in the sand every day of the week. The Welfare program is socialist.

Take not I didn't call it "communist". (in the paragraph you above that you qouted me). Welfare pertain to Socialism. The Economic structure of the ideal (Communism).


Though of course, its still completely centered upon those poor poor proletariat.

[DayWalker]

If you want the literal definition of communism, all it is, is the end result of socialism.

"To Commune" Communism. Its equivelent to Anarchy. There is no government, everyone lives in Harmony, Utopia.


Socialism is merely the process and steps that lead to that end result. typically involving the economy.

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic) system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#_note-0) This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_councils)—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system), socialism is often characterized by state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) or worker ownership of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production)."

I'm not sure this is my point but I'm reading it right now
http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html

I'll let you know ;)

[Axe&Hammer]

And welfare is just that, worthless.
Welfare has saved millions of people from starvation and destitution ,hardly worthless. Federal assistance is needed in all nations,even the richest nations have them.


Our schools have crap loads of money pumped into them. :lol: you're joking right? :suspect:



All that money gets guzzled down into social programs, that are completely infested with lowlifes and bums that do not contribute to our society.don't badmouth the poor:?


A good portion of those, being illegals. It makes me sick.Illegal immigrants are no threat to our nation they do their share tossing them some govment cheese doesn't hurt.


Please stop giving Republicans bad rep with the poor bashing :cry:

[Vulgotha]

Welfare has saved millions of people from starvation and destitution ,hardly worthless. Federal assistance is needed in all nations,even the richest nations have them.


:lol: you're joking right? :suspect:


don't badmouth the poor:?


Illegal immigrants are no threat to our nation they do their share tossing them some govment cheese doesn't hurt.


Please stop giving Republicans bad rep with the poor bashing :cry:


Its not poor bashing. Do your research, Welfare has got to go. Its a tumor in America.
Too bad, I'm badmouthing the poor. Sure, there are some who legitimately deserve to be there, and some of those few will eventually sever the connection and get a job.

But many don't, and never will. Its having an adverse effect on our economy,and its being reflected in our taxes.

Yea, Public schools have tons of money thrown at them. All the schools here in NC are loaded with cash, have Cable\Satellites, a TV in every classroom (flat panel, HD) and state of the art security, (I.E.) Cameras, metal detectors.

Atkins was built on a 600Million dollar budget. it was joint operation by Gates and the Government.

I went there for around half a year. They placed it in a ghetto, hoping "Money and technology" would solve the problems in that area. Put it to you this way: I was one of 10 white kids there. Currently there are only around 4 now.

People had knives, drugs, and other illicit materials at that school ever day. They ahd "Resource Officers" to pull unruley students out of classrooms when they refused to obey.

All "Resource Officers" had guns, billy clubs, handcuffs and were roughly 200lbs big. There were 6 of them at any given time.

They were there to "Help kids understand what hte positive role the police take in modern society". Ah, isn't that a nice spin? They had friggin guns, and on more then one occasion cuffed somebody.

No, they were there for crowd control, and threat termination. Period.

Yet my state has one of the worst track records in regard to public education.

...Don't give Republicans a bad name by pandering to Illegals.

[DayWalker]

ok, so that article for the most part hits on what I am talking about. Lenin and Stalin corrupted the idea of socialism, etc, etc.
Personally I think so sort of hybrid socialist welfare system could be achieved... it just would take a few people smarter than me to do it :lol:

Vulgutha- your contempt for the poor is troubling...

[Vulgotha]

ok, so that article for the most part hits on what I am talking about. Lenin and Stalin corrupted the idea of socialism, etc, etc.


No, thats what I was talking about. Read my original post there. It was edited not a second before you posted a rebuttal.

[Axe&Hammer]

I

Yea, Public schools have tons of money thrown at them. All the schools here in NC are loaded with cash, have Cable\Satellites, a TV in every classroom (flat panel, HD) and state of the art security, (I.E.) Cameras, metal detectors.
So public schools where you live have high budgets,dont generalize,we just got DVD







...Don't give Republicans a bad name by pandering to Illegals.Illegals are a asset to America,but as most conservatives Republicans in power are racist,and most republicans are white lower-middle class,and thus easily scared I understand why you hate them.Dont hate on cheap labor.

[Vulgotha]

So public schools where you live have high budgets,dont generalize,we just got DVD





Illegals are a asset to America,but as most conservatives Republicans in power are racist,and most republicans are white lower-middle class,and thus easily scared I understand why you hate them.Dont hate on cheap labor.

Ah, don't generalize now. Just because YOU BELIEVE THEM TO BE THIS WAY.


We both have beliefs, niether of which can be backed up by 100% proof. Don't be the hypocrite.



I believe that no, the Illegal immigrants are not "Necessary" to this Economy nor beneficial. Look at Californias Economy. It doesn't take a genius to figure out HOW it was broken into pieces.

Here is my biggest point: They broke the law. I don't care what they're doing or even if (hypothetically speaking,) they're completely the saving grace of this economy. they've broken the Law. Our laws.

Everything else is secondary to me.


Also, NC was what you might call an example. Frankly I've seen this wherever I've lived. Our education should be completely privatized. That way, the schools are competing agaisnt other schools for the paying students.

Capitalism at its finest. Ensures everything goes up in regards to quality, and best of all, no governmental restrictions. Or "Political Correctness".

Though I'm sure this will never come to fruition. the ACLU would have a field day with this.

[Behemoko]

Yea, Public schools have tons of money thrown at them. All the schools here in NC are loaded with cash, have Cable\Satellites, a TV in every classroom (flat panel, HD) and state of the art security, (I.E.) Cameras, metal detectors.


WOW, your schools are f**king rich. :suspect: The tv in every class alone (HD at least) has yet to come to my old high school.

[Terz]

This really wasn't supposed to become an argument...

[DayWalker]

This really wasn't supposed to become an argument...

argument= discussion. Deal with it.
Continue...

No offense but I beleive I read that most public school systems are ridiculously underfunded.

Vulgatha I think you would be of a different mindset if you had come up differently...

[WonsAuto]

Vulgotha's sig and avitar serve him well... whenever your fellow Republicans tell you you're on the wrong track, you probably are.

[Eraser.]

In theory, if you look at our history, its never been fully tried. Thanks to FDR and the programs he set up.

Its been dabbled in (and with each time success) but never has anyone gone full fledge at it like they have with these worthless Welfare programs.


And welfare is just that, worthless.


run down, under funded schools? Our schools have crap loads of money pumped into them. Its the government's response to everything: Throw money at it. It'll work.


Yea right, I'm not so dead set agaisnt JApan's version of education: All of them are Privately owned.

Seems to be working for them pretty well, and you don't get everyone dragged down with "Political Correctness" and other ridiculious Government mandates.

Tax cuts do help the poor if given to the rich, especially those who own big businesses. there is simply no way around that fact.

Now our liberal friends are always about "Taxing the wealthy" to help the poor. In a Robin Hood like fashion. thats just stupid. It doesn't work.

All that money gets guzzled down into social programs, that are completely infested with lowlifes and bums that do not contribute to our society.

I think we should go to a pure sales tax. It would boost our economy AND help deal with the illegal immigrants.

FAIR tax is stupid and inherently regressive. I think what you are not understanding (if you dont mind me saying) is that many poor people are born poor in crappy neighborhoods that naturaly have the worst schools. Of course if you leave in a school district where the median income is >$75,000 you are going to have extra money, but that is unusual and is very ignorant of you to say that schools are overfunded. Im not being rude, its ignorant because you dont know any better because you probably have never been to a poor district.

If you have a problem with the current education system, maybe you should be looking at your party's current platform (the vast majority of teachers find no child left behind to be a joke, and for good reason).

Capitalism at its finest. Ensures everything goes up in regards to quality, and best of all, no governmental restrictions. Or "Political Correctness".

Though I'm sure this will never come to fruition. the ACLU would have a field day with this.

You dont see any flaws with capitalism?

[ryanworldleader]

If the democrats win, we'll be the new soviet union.

If the republicans win, we'll remain the good old us of a.

[Vulgotha]

FAIR tax is stupid and inherently regressive. I think what you are not understanding (if you dont mind me saying) is that many poor people are born poor in crappy neighborhoods that naturaly have the worst schools. Of course if you leave in a school district where the median income is >$75,000 you are going to have extra money, but that is unusual and is very ignorant of you to say that schools are overfunded. Im not being rude, its ignorant because you dont know any better because you probably have never been to a poor district.

If you have a problem with the current education system, maybe you should be looking at your party's current platform (the vast majority of teachers find no child left behind to be a joke, and for good reason).

You dont see any flaws with capitalism?

Well it really depends on your definition of "Underfunded". Compared to what? Private schools? Compared to private education, the public school system is swimming in money.

One thing you don't understand is, with a pure sales tax, you have no IRS, no income tax, no property tax. Nothing. Where do you think this extra money goes? In your pocket. I don't see what the problem is really. You decide how much you pay in taxes.

Um, No child left behind IS a waste of time. Teachers would be imbeciles to agree with it. By the way, I think the majority of our teachers are trash. Unfit for educating our youth.

Ha! Put it to you this way, Capitalism is what works best. Would you rather have socialism?

Nothing is "perfect" (atleast to my worldview). You only come so close, therefore capitalism>Socialism. But if your all for Socialism go ahead, vote "Yes" for higher taxes, more Social programs, and the like.

A Socialist Economies have always failed, and rendered countries poor. The only noteable exception is China.

But then again, no one can truly say their economy is Socialistic. Hong Kong, and perhaps in a few years, Taiwan prove that.


Lastly, what you fail to understand: Just because I'm a conservative, doesn't mean I huggle all over the Republicans. I just like them a bit more, fiscally and usually, socially. For instance, this "Amnesty Bill" (as thats what it really is, you can argue about it all you want) thats being completely supported by all sides, really offends me. The Republicans did NOT communicate with their base, and just decided to slide this through ASAP as to get along with the newly appointed Democrat Congress.

If it were left up to me, I'd have all of those Republicans who voted "Yes" without consent of their constituients pulled from Congress. Thankfully, next term elections we'll probably see this happen by itself. In due time.

[Eraser.]

Well it really depends on your definition of "Underfunded". Compared to what? Private schools? Compared to private education, the public school system is swimming in money.


source? And you also need to make the distinction between upper and lower education


One thing you don't understand is, with a pure sales tax, you have no IRS, no income tax, no property tax. Nothing. Where do you think this extra money goes? In your pocket. I don't see what the problem is really. You decide how much you pay in taxes.
What made you think I didnt understand it? Its pretty simple. Dont be cocky, watching O'Reily doesnt make you invicible. You know, Im gonna have to do this. How old are you? You dont have to tell me if you dont want to, but are you at least old enough to buy cigarettes?

Put it to you this way, Capitalism is what works best. Would you rather have socialism?
Works best at what?

A Socialist Economies have always failed, and rendered countries poor. The only noteable exception is China.
And all of Europe.


Reading your comments is comical. Keep em coming! :D

[DINAMO788]

yes hobo>hillary.

i dont like obama's policies and all the other little things..(lack of experience....sounds like osama...... .. ...black....:rolls eyes:




guilianni is the best choice. mccain is so flip floppy and like i said....hobo>hillary, rather like firefox said

[Eraser.]

guilianni is the best choice. mccain is so flip floppy and like i said....hobo>hillary, rather like firefox said
Guilianna is a liberal wearing a red tie. And being mayor when a crisis happens hardly makes you experienced. Without 9/11 he would be just an ordinary guy. Tell me, how was his response extraordinary? He could have at least done something about WTC7, and where the **** is the memorial?

[Blu-Ray]

This will be my last election were I won't be able to vote. But if I were old enough, yes, I would vote for him. Not only because I think he would do a good job running our country, but because he's black, and I kinda look up to him since I am black myself.

But, I'm only 15, so my words don't count. :wink:

LOL, look at my avatar.

[Vulgotha]

source? And you also need to make the distinction between upper and lower education


What made you think I didnt understand it? Its pretty simple. Dont be cocky, watching O'Reily doesnt make you invicible. You know, Im gonna have to do this. How old are you? You dont have to tell me if you dont want to, but are you at least old enough to buy cigarettes?


Works best at what?


And all of Europe.


Reading your comments is comical. Keep em coming! :D


Yes because clearly Europe is just so monstrously successful. Your only kidding yourself. Majorly.

HA! Source? I don't need a source to tell you that Private Education is dirt poor. Open your eyes.

I've attended both public and Private across several states. Its generally always the case, Public schools have better equipment, better facilities, more up to date texts, yet horrible teachers and their Avg. GPA pales in comparison to private schools.

You can look up all the studies you want, I'm not going to trouble myself with it.

call me "Running away" if you wish, but I have more productive ways to waste my time. There comes a point where somthing is so blatantly obvious that it should really be self evident.


rofl, Capitalism>Socialism. Its more effective, generates more revenue, its the better way to go. Don't agree with me? Fine. I don't care. I could be obnoxious and demand you give me surveys and studies showing that Socialist economies beat out Capitalist ones, but I won't.

1. I'm a nice guy
2. I don't really care.

I'm just stating my opinion. No need to start throwing out stuff about O'Reilly. Considering I don't listen\watch him.

Just Hannidy, Limbaugh and Boortz in my free time. Yea, I'm a hardline conservative, but I'm sure you'll be skipping for joy once are lefty congress passes the Fairness Doctorine.

"Fairness". pff.

[Eraser.]

Yes because clearly Europe is just so monstrously successful. Your only kidding yourself. Majorly.

I think this comment speaks for itself


HA! Source? I don't need a source to tell you that Private Education is dirt poor. Open your eyes.

I've attended both public and Private across several states. Its generally always the case, Public schools have better equipment, better facilities, more up to date texts, yet horrible teachers and their Avg. GPA pales in comparison to private schools.

You can look up all the studies you want, I'm not going to trouble myself with it.
Lol@ forming an oppinion without using facts.

In public schools, teachers get paid more, but thats about where the differences end. Most catholics schools are "poor", which baffles me since members of the Congregation all pay at least $10 or so a week, and many folds more if your child attends school there. Maybe Catholic priests with their nice cars and $300,000 houses arent as fiscally conservative as you would hope.

And if you arent talking about non Catholic, just forget it. I went to a public middle school: one with high standards (trust me they exhist, and even more in high school with all AP/IB schools), and two of my friends went to non-denominational private schools, the cost was $20000 every year. If they dont have the "best equipment and text books" they need to hire a new accountant.


I'm just stating my opinion. No need to start throwing out stuff about O'Reilly. Considering I don't listen\watch him.

Oh really. You said this in another thread, about said *********:

I like him alot actually.



Oh, I forgot that you form oppinions without research. "From the gut"! You do know Colbert is just a charicature, meant to be taken facetiously, right?

[prisoner_of_war]

I am not voting for Obama, I wish Newt Gingrich would run.

[Tha_Legend]

Obama doesn't care much for the Bill of Rights.

[twh116]

If I was two days older, I would vote for Ron Paul, the one man who would restore the Constitution and abolish the IRS and income tax. We need a man who believes the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and not a "guideline".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Read about him and educate yourselves. Also, anybody who supports Guliani should do a little research.

[hoverbike]

If I was two days older, I would vote for Ron Paul, the one man who would restore the Constitution and abolish the IRS and income tax. We need a man who believes the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and not a "guideline".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Read about him and educate yourselves. Also, anybody who supports Guliani should do a little research.

Yes, please spread the word about him. I'm glad someone else other then me supports Ron Paul. Major problem - I'm Canadian :| .

[DayWalker]

:lol:

Nobody even like Rudi before 9/11- likewise few people liked Bush ;)

Rudi was just competent enough not to blow the popularity caused by being in charge when thousands of civilians were murdered. :roll:

not to mention he's pro gun control, pro gay rights, and dresses like a woman from time to time :lol:

Oh yeah... and he still thinks the Iraq War is the greatest thing since sliced bread. :|

If the evangelicals can get past all that maybe there is hope for them afterall. I kinda like Mit too... but there is no way the elephants elect a mormon. A women or an African american have a much better chance winning the republican nomination than does a mormon.

Hillary looks to be going strong, Edwards too... Obama seems kinda stagnant. But it's still early. The GOP hit squad hasn't been unleashed yet.

[Axe&Hammer]

If the democrats win, we'll be the new soviet union.

pure stupidity,wait till your in older to make comments about politics

If the republicans win, we'll remain the good old us of a.
its "U S of A"




i dont like obama's policies and all the other little things..(lack of experience....sounds like osama...... .. ...black.... ) :rolls eyes:

yeah those are valid flaws.:-|






not to mention he's pro gun control, pro gay rights, and dresses like a woman from time to time :lol:
so gay people should have less rights? :?


Hillary looks to be going strong, Edwards too... Obama seems kinda stagnant.
other way around

[Vulgotha]

I think this comment speaks for itself


Lol@ forming an oppinion without using facts.

In public schools, teachers get paid more, but thats about where the differences end. Most catholics schools are "poor", which baffles me since members of the Congregation all pay at least $10 or so a week, and many folds more if your child attends school there. Maybe Catholic priests with their nice cars and $300,000 houses arent as fiscally conservative as you would hope.

And if you arent talking about non Catholic, just forget it. I went to a public middle school: one with high standards (trust me they exhist, and even more in high school with all AP/IB schools), and two of my friends went to non-denominational private schools, the cost was $20000 every year. If they dont have the "best equipment and text books" they need to hire a new accountant.



Oh really. You said this in another thread, about said *********:


Oh, I forgot that you form oppinions without research. "From the gut"! You do know Colbert is just a charicature, meant to be taken facetiously, right?


Actually I believe I was referring to Hannidy or confused him briefly for Hannidy. Sorry for my mistake, if indeed it was mine.


The avg private school is dirt poor compared to the Public, school. I don't even know why I'm debating this with you, its really a no brainer.

MY schools don't get freakin tax dollars.


Here, and yea this is just from Wiki, look it up in detail yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States#Public_and_Private_ schools


"The United States Department of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education) released a statement recently detailing the average cost per pupil in public and private schools, and found that the average public school cost was approximately USD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar)$7,200 per student while the average private school cost per pupil was just USD$3,500. "

Avg Private student cost: 3,500$
Avg Public student cost: 7,200$

Its fairly obvious there are typically MORE public students then private students, so do the math accordingly.

YOU get your educational budget from taxes
WE get ours from tuition and misc fundraisers. Mostly tuition.

And of course the public school teachers get paid much more then private school teachers.

Generally speaking most public schools have a football team, somesort of football field, cheerleaders etc. Private schools not so much. I can't prove this with "Statistics and raw numbers" but again, if you have the money, (which you do) you get extra nice things.


Conclusion: Public schools have MUCH more money throw around.


I do NOT base my opinions off "Nothing" just most people really are stupid. Like it should have been insanely obvious that public schools on avg have more money to throw around.

There are of course those that are underfunded by comparison to another private school in the area, but it should be so overwhelmingly obvious that on Avg. Nationwide, public schools have the $$$ NOT Private.

I'm not even touching Catholic private schooling, though I do put them under the same title as "Private" education obviously.

[pendinginsanity]

I'd vote for him for the sake of having a black president, would perhaps losen up some of the old hate, that shrouds around the states.

[Vulgotha]

I'd vote for him for the sake of having a black president, would perhaps losen up some of the old hate, that shrouds around the states.


I don't care what color he is or how the blacks would feel about him, thats not even seconary to me. Not even on the radar.

I'm more concerned with his politics and slant, and how I think it'd effect the country..

[Axe&Hammer]

Public schools are members of a district,the district is part of the city or local government.most public schools were I live are in a district that is strapped for cash,and rely heavily on PTSA donations and support.

I live in a fairly affluent state and city,were private schools are well funded and have much smaller class sizes,based on my experiences and the experiences from my father(from Reading,Mass) and my mother(from Wheaton Il) private schools have more funding or a better money to student ratio that public schools.

[Vulgotha]

Public schools are members of a district,the district is part of the city or local government.most public schools were I live are in a district that is strapped for cash,and rely heavily on PTSA donations and support.

I live in a fairly affluent state and city,were private schools are well funded and have much smaller class sizes,based on my experiences and the experiences from my father(from Reading,Mass) and my mother(from Wheaton Il) private schools have more funding or a better money to student ratio that public schools.


Where I live every public school has HD panel tvs, Satellite connection for TV's and of course the obligitory football teams. And they ALL have contracts with Dell so they get their dimension desktops.

(Not "All" but of the 5-6 here yea, they all do)

Private schools here? (including mine) NO football teams, obviously NO HD panel Tvs and no Satellite, in fact almost every school here thats private has NO tv per room. (except ours through a deal with Channel one, though the tvs are all around 10-15 years old).

True it depends upon your location, but on avg, YES public schools have more money, it really isn't that hard to figure out.

[Axe&Hammer]

Where I live every public school has HD panel tvs, Satellite connection for TV's
Where do live?,and why would a school need a sat tv? are porn and NASCAR appreciation classes available as electives?

My school has a 1 Apple G5 ,20ish Yamaha Keyboards,100 crappy base line Dells,a dvd projector and 5 propane grills as its luxury items.

[WonsAuto]

Where I live every public school has HD panel tvs, Satellite connection for TV's and of course the obligitory football teams. And they ALL have contracts with Dell so they get their dimension desktops.

Um... where do you live? The Chicago Public Schools systems isn't so generous with the money. I graduated from high school just 2-1/2 years ago, and my nephew is in high school now, and there's nothing of the sort. There are football teams, but they're run by the security staff, and all of the equipment is years old.

[Vulgotha]

I live in NC. We have probably the worst education in this half of the US, yet the schools here have money thrown at them like there is no tomarrow.

Atkins High, Reagen, East, money money money.


Besides you guys are missing my point: On avg Public schools have more funding and readily availible $$$.

Specific instances and circumstances don't interest me.


Edit: Well atleast you have a football team man.

[Kougaiji]

Hell to the no. He doesn't stand a chance in the final november election. And I'd get as many people as possible to vote republican if hillary gets the nomination. No, I'm voting Edwards.

[Xaor]

As a Brit, I HOPE you vote for Obama. America + Bush is scary, I don't want to live through another 10 or so years with something similra.

[pnorris]

i am also swaying more towards Rudy.

[Stiff]

Don't live in the US, but from what I've seen on the news, internet and such he would get my vote if I lived in US.

[sonyfan6]

For all you Obama fans out there an article discussing Douglas Wilder's (the first African American governor) view that Obama can open up the south to the democratic party. I thought it was an interesting read and figured that this was the best thread for it. Enjoy!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5518.html

http://images.politico.com/global/070826_wilder_obama.jpgRICHMOND, Va. — L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia, who made history as the nation's first elected black governor, is preparing to campaign aggressively for Barack Obama, and predicted in an interview that the charismatic young candidate could shatter the Republican Party's virtual lock on the South.

"He's not race-less," Wilder said of Obama, "but the skin color is of no moment. I don't think he would be an easy target for the Republicans."

The unstinting embrace by Wilder, now the mayor of Richmond, could be important in Virginia and other southern states, where his reputation still looms large and the African-American vote could prove decisive in the Democratic nominating contest.

His lavish praise was also surprising. Wilder's frequent practice has been to haze fellow Democrats, either with public digs or a mischievous silence, if he believed they had not paid their dues or could challenge him for influence.

In a 90-minute interview, Wilder also denounced African-American activists who question whether Obama is "black enough" in his style or agenda, a criticism Wilder said comes simply because Obama does not share their interest in "the pimping of race."

He was also notably cool toward Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton. He said that Clinton's explanations of her 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war make no sense and that her polarizing personality makes her less electable than Obama in Virginia and similar moderate states.

Wilder, whose gift for theater is intact after a tumultuous life on the public stage, said he he won't make a formal endorsement for a month or so. He relishes his maverick reputation and remains unpredictable even in his unusual mayoral encore, where his days are consumed, apparently happily, with skirmishes over transit funding and police cadets. But he made it plain he hopes to make his endorsement echo beyond his Richmond base and throughout the South.

Wilder became a racial trail-blazer in the 1980s and early 1990s by downplaying race and cracking conservative, white voting blocs that once looked off-limits to a black man in the Old Dominion. In the interview Friday, he said Obama's style reminded him of his own, calling him a politician who "doesn't use race as badge, nor does he consider it a barrier."

He called the "black enough" criticism "inappropriate."

"What is blackness?" he asked. "Is it the way you talk? Do you got to say, 'Dey this, dey dat.' Or the way you dress? Or is it the forgiving of certain things? What is black enough? Is [Jesse] Jackson black enough? Is [Al] Sharpton black enough?"

Wilder's embrace of a fellow African-American may at first blush seem natural, but long-time political observers in this former Confederate capital said it was hardly a foregone conclusion given Wilder's independent streak.

In Obama's case, at least for now, it appears flattery will get him everywhere.

The former governor said he met Obama at one of the Washington correspondents' dinners, shortly after he was elected senator from Illinois in 2004. "I was very impressed with him — nice looking guy," Wilder recalled. "He came over to my table, as a matter of fact. He said very nice things — how he had been inspired by what we had done in Virginia, and it meant a lot to see that take place. And he wrote something similar to that in the book when he autographed it."

Wilder recalled that in his statewide races, some "were accusing me of not spending enough time in the black community, not recognizing that 85 percent of the vote was not in that community.

"Where was that criticism coming from?" he asked. "Some of the African-American community. They ultimately were supportive. But they were questioning the strategy."

Wilder flashed annoyance when he recalled conversations with people who say Obama "is a nice man — he's got a lot to learn."

"That's a put-down," Wilder said firmly. "What has he got to learn?"

Part of Wilder's sense of fraternity with Obama comes from the success the latter is achieving independent of the African-American establishment, with its high-profile representatives who are self-appointed but receive great deference.

"Certain black leaders would believe that you have to go through their prism: 'If I lay my hand on you, you're OK,' " Wilder said with a chuckle. "So many people have made a living off of the pimping of race. I told him when he runs, one of his big problems he would have is with the African-American leadership, as such. He didn't question it. He said, 'I think I know what you mean.' "

Virginia, once dependable for Republicans in presidential elections, has been moving inexorably toward toss-up status and is one of roughly nine states that Democrats are targeting as potential flips in 2008. "It's not a knee-jerk state," Wilder said. "It's not a red state — my God."

Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat who has endorsed Obama,said in an interview in his office on Friday: "Virginia is changing. It's not a one-party state anymore."

Wilder's role in 2008 politics is unfolding in piecemeal fashion — with a likely climax next month or in October.

"I've had several conversations with Obama," Wilder said. "Mrs. Clinton called when she was here, and I returned her call the next day or so, but we haven't talked. I haven't endorsed anybody yet, but I will."

"I don't see any downfall with either of them. But I've been tremendously impressed with Obama. ... He has the ability to be a uniter, more so than she. I think the country is tired of the 'us' and 'thems.'"

"The question keeps coming about Hillary, as polarizing as she is: Would she be the best candidate?" Wilder said. "People would probably disagree, but today, I think Obama would have the best chance of winning in a general election because he doesn't carry any baggage."

As to why Clinton is seen as polarizing, he said: "She's fine one on one. But when there's a group, she's a little drawn, a little reserved and somewhat testy — not relaxed."

He also made plain he finds her record on Iraq lame, and said he expects many Democrats will feel likewise.

"Let's not kid ourselves: The Iraq war is going to be a part of this election," he added. "It's not going to go away. . I would press her a little more. I would say to her, 'You don't sound like John Kerry. But you're saying you didn't vote for what George Bush did, but you voted to give him the authority. That's parsing it.' I would press the issue of: Do you regret it? She's never been straightforward about that."

Clinton's explanation that she and others thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction does not cut it, he said. "I have a lot of problems with that vote. Forget the weapons of mass destruction — let's put those on the side. But was Iraq at all involved with 9/11? No! No evidence of it, no place...Why attack Iraq now, when the enemy that attacked us needs to be ferreted out, found, sought, punished?"

Wilder, 76, is a lawyer and grandson of slaves who was the first African-American state senator in Virginia since Reconstruction. During his governorship from 1990 to 1994, he made a half-hearted run for the Democratic presidential nomination that flamed out in less than four months.

He said if anyone had told him during his own campaign that a black politician could be leading the fundraising competition, as Obama is doing, he would have been stunned. But he said even that success is subject to a double standard from some people who want Obama to run as a traditional black candidate.

"Someone asked me in Washington not too long ago, 'Where is all this money coming from?' " Wilder said, referring to Obama's fundraising prowess. "I said, 'The same place the others' money is coming from.' 'Well, will these people own him?' I said, 'Will they own the other candidates?'"

For all his shots at Clinton, Wilder said he respects her as a capable and "driven" politician. And, given the Democratic trend in the electorate, he thinks the next president will be either a black or a woman, and can even envision Clinton and Obama on the same ticket. "People are ready," he said. "Look what Deval Patrick did — came from nowhere and won the governorship of Massachusetts."

Wilder recalled that he was told that rural whites would never vote for him. "'Lo and behold, I started going up into the mountains with those mountaineers and coal miners," he said. "They embraced me — wouldn't let me go. Some of the strongest support I had. And that's why I feel today that Americans are fair-minded people."

[Firefox]

Where I live every public school has HD panel tvs, Satellite connection for TV's and of course the obligitory football teams. And they ALL have contracts with Dell so they get their dimension desktops.

(Not "All" but of the 5-6 here yea, they all do)

Private schools here? (including mine) NO football teams, obviously NO HD panel Tvs and no Satellite, in fact almost every school here thats private has NO tv per room. (except ours through a deal with Channel one, though the tvs are all around 10-15 years old).

True it depends upon your location, but on avg, YES public schools have more money, it really isn't that hard to figure out.

Which state do you live in? :suspect: We have Dell computers too, but
HDTV's?

[roushman90]

Well, first of all I don't know about public schools...I go to Mt. Eden in Hayward,ca (SF Bay Area), and my high school and our district is broke....or so they like us to think, a slew of administrators of our district have been embezzling money meant for our schools, but it's finally catching up to them. Our school district is shady, some real bad people running around stealing tax money and the like.
Second, Honestly I might vote for Obama in 08' but I'm really not sure if our country could handle an African-American president. I really don't like any of the candidates because I pretty much think that most politicians are dirty, lying, scum bags(Which most really are). There is so much hate and racism in the U.S, I don't know how having Obama leading the country would fare us.....We would all like to believe that It doesn't matter what color or what age or what religion or what sex someone is, but we should all know, that that just isn't the case in the U.S

[DINAMO788]

since you're new and this isn't the first dead topic you've bumped....the general rule of forum etiquette is if a thread is no longer active or very relevent, there is no need to resurrect an already finished discussion.

[killa8man]

no one will
Hilary will win it for the demoractes

[Lord Arklon]

since you're new and this isn't the first dead topic you've bumped....the general rule of forum etiquette is if a thread is no longer active or very relevent, there is no need to resurrect an already finished discussion.
Um...I'm not trying to rain on your parade or anything, but the presidential election will be relevant until someone is elected.

[kflashin]

Personally I don't vote because I hate the feeling that if I vote for a certain person and they go and completley screw things up(BUSH),then I am partially resposible,and I don't wanna carry that burden on my shoulders.Besides your votes don't count for nothing anyways,because it's all up to the ILLUMINATI

[Lord Arklon]

Personally I don't vote because I hate the feeling that if I vote for a certain person and they go and completley screw things up(BUSH),then I am partially resposible,and I don't wanna carry that burden on my shoulders.Besides your votes don't count for nothing anyways,because it's all up to the ILLUMINATI
:lol: Curse those illuminated charlatans!

I thought you were going to say because it's due to the electoral college, which I'm not terribly fond of either.

[roushman90]

Well sorry dinamo788, I wasn't aware.

[roushman90]

I hope everyone realizes that it is very likely that if either Hilary or Obama wins, the other will most likely serve as Vice-President.

[Lord Arklon]

I hope everyone realizes that it is very likely that if either Hilary or Obama wins, the other will most likely serve as Vice-President.
Umm...you're joking, right? Serious inquiry.

[kflashin]

I hope everyone realizes that it is very likely that if either Hilary or Obama wins, the other will most likely serve as Vice-President.Either your joking or you don't know politics.The candidates choose their own running mates or should I say the ILLUMINATI choose's the running mates

[DayWalker]

obama is certainly popular enough to be a great choice for VP...

Hillary is either #1 or nothing...

[BlindSight]

Right now, I am swaying towards Giuliani....

Your voting for a complete rat? A man who laughs at constitutional rights and vows to drag on the stupidest war in history?

Giuliani is George Bush 2.0

Just like Bush his entire campaign is funded by big oil.

The question is not "What causes Poverty?" but rather "What causes wealth?".

To help the poor, you help the rich. Why? Because no one has ever worked for a poor man.

What do the ultra rich do? They create businesses or own them. Now, who works under them? the common folk.

And by taxing the crap out of those "Mean rich people" your only encouraging them NOT to hire due to revenue loss. By allowing the rich to do what they do best, the economy will sore, and the poor will have jobs.

Its really as simple as that. Its what it boils down to.

But, when a Command Solution is used to rectify a MARKET problem, we only get a mess. Never once, has taxing the rich helped the poor. Unless you count all those degenerative leeches on welfare.

Yea, I'm a hardliner. Degenerative leeches? You mean people with handicaps, people who never received a proper education because our education system sucks balls? There may very well be a flaw in the welfare system, but your elitist pro-rich attitude is both sickening and disturbing.

I can't believe you cited trickle down economics. That crap has never been taken seriously by ANY intelligent economist, its only perpetuated by ignorant talking points on television and radio.

BTW it does not have to be "tax the rich to help the poor".

It can be "tax the rich to serve the country, tax the rich to improve education, tax the rich to pay for war". But apparently your to delusional to see that.

[GRX Dragon]

I would sooner vote for Hillary Clinton than I would Barack Obama, and even Hillary Clinton I won't vote for.

I would only vote for three people in '08: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee.

Btw, Blindsight-no serious economist huh? I'll call you out on that right there. Afterall, the typical socialist/communist/whatever sounds far more greedy than any Capitalist, and I myself a "greedy pig" leissez-faire Capitalist.

[paranoia13]

Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul
http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/5081/rpadlnv6.jpg

http://bp3.blogger.com/_pllbjywfYw4/RztDuXfFiTI/AAAAAAAAAAs/iHbV3S4i4_Y/s1600/rp.gif.png
http://ronpaul.in/

[Tenchi]

I haven't been on these forums for nigh on ages, but I've just now rediscovered them in my bookmarks folder, and I'm glad I stumbled upon this particular post.

For the past six years, we have been the victims of gross and palpable misgovernance by an administration that came into the White House under the pretense of being against country-building, of being against invasions, of being against interventionism, and one which has not only failed miserably to deliver on its hollow campaign promises, but which has gone a step further by delivering exactly the opposite. We were told in 2002 that beyond the shadow of a doubt there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and rushed into what Bush called a "preemptive war," such that the evil Iraqis wouldn't use their weapons against us. When we invaded Iraq, we, of course, found no weapons of mass destruction. And being the incredibly prudent and levelheaded people that we are, what did we do when we had a chance to expel them from the White House? Why, we reelected them! It wasn't all our fault, though; we were, after all, inveigled into believing that if we elected another president, the middle east would fall apart--more than it already had, that is. And here we are, mired in the quick sands of a sectarian conflict with no end in sight, fighting an open-ended war against an at best spectral enemy at the cost of thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and astronomical sums of money. Our failure to do anything worthwhile for the Iraqi people is no better illustrated than by the fact that the consensus among Iraqis is that they were better of with Saddam Hussein. I read an article a few weeks back that said Iraqis celebrate death from natural causes because of how commonplace needless and premature death is, thanks to our precipitous invasion.

The truth is that there is only one candidate running for president today that did not help to engineer and did not vote to authorize the biggest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam, and that candidate is Barack Obama. He had the judgment and the conviction to take the anti-war stance when everyone around him was improvidently adding their voice to the pro-war chorus. He delivered a stirring speech about the war, delineating the reasons why he was so staunchly opposed to it, and if one were to read through that speech today, one would think he had delivered it yesterday because of how incredibly prescient his predictions were. Is this not what counts in a president? Judgment? From what I've read in this post, most think otherwise. Most, in fact, think it boils down to experience. And for those people, I have a few questions: Was it experience that compelled Franklin Delano Roosevelt to make the decisions he made apropos of the economy to bring the Great Depression to an end? Was it experience that enabled us to win our independence from the British Empire, an empire so vast that the sun never set on it? Was it experience that propelled Abraham Lincoln to draft the Emancipation Proclamation? And was it experience that equipped and enabled John F. Kennedy to handle the Cuban Missile Crisis? The answer to all of these questions is no. It was not experience, it was judgment. And that--judgment--is what Americans ought to look for in a leader.

And even the experience argument is tenuous at best. Hillary Clinton has no substantive experience save for her term and a half in the senate. First Lady is not an official post; she wasn't elected. Furthermore, even if one accepts it as experience, she failed to accomplish anything worth mentioning--her health care proposal failed miserably, and after that she just sat idly around while her husband cheated on her with Lewinsky and who knows whom--or what--else. Obama, on the other hand, served in the Illinois state legislature--an elected post--since 1997 and worked before that as a community organizer and a civil rights lawyer. There is more substance in what he's done for the past twenty-five years than what Clinton has done. Edwards doesn't even have a chance of winning, and if he's the nominee, Democrats will, much to the surprise of no-one, lose again.

Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States of America, no matter how much petty, trivial nonsense FOX News fabricates.

Btw, Blindsight-no serious economist huh? I'll call you out on that right there. Afterall, the typical socialist/communist/whatever sounds far more greedy than any Capitalist, and I myself a "greedy pig" leissez-faire Capitalist.
Have you even read The Communist Manifesto...? Your naïve, untutored assertions about communism lead me to think otherwise. Marx and Engels actually inveighed against the kind of capitalistic rapacity you link to communism. In fact, Marx is quoted as saying that history is nothing but class warfare. To wit, communism encompasses populism... I'm thinking someone needs to hit the books... But you are a conservative, I suppose. Conservatives getting the facts straight--a kind of incongruous scenario, is it not?

[GRX Dragon]

Have you even read The Communist Manifesto...? Your naïve, untutored assertions about communism lead me to think otherwise. Marx and Engels actually inveighed against the kind of capitalistic rapacity you link to communism. In fact, Marx is quoted as saying that history is nothing but class warfare. To wit, communism encompasses populism... I'm thinking someone needs to hit the books... But you are a conservative, I suppose. Conservatives getting the facts straight--a kind of incongruous scenario, is it not?

I have read "The Communist Manifesto" and I stand behind exactly what I've said. The Communist believes people have no right to their own property, or money. In a Communist world, you can claim nobody has to do anything to get something all you want-but it doesn't work as you would still be kicked out. The greater problem is the Communist's ignorance of how any large body of people require a state behind it.

I'm not naive or untutored, but thanks for showing your typical Communist side.

[DayWalker]

imo... socialism (not so much communism) is a good idea... it just doesn't work.

People are too greedy, too lazy, too jeaouls... too human.
I do think that socialism can work on a micro level... (cough... health care... cough)

And before you get all upitty about universal health care... it already works extremely well in many modern countries.
Look it up.

[GRX Dragon]

imo... socialism (not so much communism) is a good idea... it just doesn't work.

People are too greedy, too lazy, too jeaouls... too human.
I do think that socialism can work on a micro level... (cough... health care... cough)

Well at least you admit it doesn't work.

And before you get all upitty about universal health care... it already works extremely well in many modern countries.
Look it up.


Yes, universal health care has worked extremely well in Canada and Cuba, well if you're capable of having to wait days, weeks, or even months to see a doctor. :/

[Kougaiji]

*i'm spamming/an idiot*

Stop spamming. Sure, Ron Paul says he'll bring the troops home (believable) and cut taxes (every single politician in existence ever has said that) but you can forget your retirement and forget hoping about a better health care system if you vote him.

Well at least you admit it doesn't work.




Yes, universal health care has worked extremely well in Canada and Cuba, well if you're capable of having to wait days, weeks, or even months to see a doctor. :/
may I suggest you visit the outside world? As in any country in europe (you know? the guys who's money is worth almost twice as much as yours?) such as britain (the guys who's money is worth more than twice as much as yours) or austria (the guys that have more nobel prize winners per capita than any other country) or ****, seriously just about any modern country in the planet.

I've lived there, almost my entire family lives there, and I'm very well aware of how the system works. And it works much better, much faster, and much more efficiently.

Speak with experience next time you chose to voice your opinion about something you know nothing about.

[Tenchi]

imo... socialism (not so much communism) is a good idea... it just doesn't work.

People are too greedy, too lazy, too jeaouls... too human.
I do think that socialism can work on a micro level... (cough... health care... cough)

And before you get all upitty about universal health care... it already works extremely well in many modern countries.
Look it up.
Socialism and communism are the sort of systems that work only on an extremely small scale, as in a town or perhaps even a city, or on a global scale.

[DayWalker]

Yes, universal health care has worked extremely well in Canada and Cuba, well if you're capable of having to wait days, weeks, or even months to see a doctor. :/

...perhaps you need to visit Canada or another one of these countries... (waiting doesn't seem to be a problem)

from my understanding they love the system. :cool:

But once again... greed, selfishness, fear cloud people's vision. :?

[Axe&Hammer]

Socialism and communism are the sort of systems that work only on an extremely small scale, as in a town or perhaps even a city, or on a global scale.
Logic error?

Also who's Ron Paul?

[Tenchi]

Logic error?

Also who's Ron Paul?

No logic error. No fallacy. Just an observation. An observation which, if I may add, Engels espouses and buttresses in several essays and treatises in articulating that communism can only be sustained if it is implemented on a small scale, or on a global scale. Do some reading.

Insofar as Ron Paul is concerned, he is a washed-up congressman from Texas who has the gall to tout himself "The Champion of the Constitution" and who runs on a platform of small government even as he professes a desire for the government in Washington to tell women whether or not they can abort their children and wants that same government in Washington to define marriage for all Americans, telling gays in this country whom they can and cannot marry. That, my friend, is not small government; that is a few notches short of rivaling Big Brother. The role of government, our forebears sagely recognized, is not to tell people how they ought to live their lives but to make certain that they can live their lives as they wish to live them. There is no room in the United States for more zealotry, more bigotry, more division; in fact, people are of late beginning to realize that it's time to eradicate it. People are pining for change and they are pining for progress, neither of which is a Republican/Conservative specialty. The right wing has historically been the party of the status quo; the left wing, on the other hand, favors sweeping change when the times absolutely demand it. And the times, my friend, demand it today more sonorously they ever have before.

The progressive movement is the future of America, not the conservative movement, or lack thereof. The future of America is forthright news reporting, not news distorting. The future of America does not include Greta van Susteren, it does not include Bill O'Reilly, it does not include Rush Limbaugh, and it most certainly does not include Sean Hannity, the very ne plus ultra of right-wing ignorance. And don't even get me started on the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war and tax-cuts to the top 300,000 thousand people in the United States, whose combined wealth of over $2,000,000,000,000 eclipses that of the bottom 150,000,000. I wrote the figures with numbers for a reason--so that one may observe the stark contrast between them and grasp the gravity of the state of affairs in this country today.

We say we are for religious tolerance, yet in spite of this, we ostracize and alienate atheists and agnostics and refuse categorically to elect anyone who doesn’t believe in God. The inscription on the Statue of Liberty reads “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” and yet this only applies to immigrants entering America through the Atlantic, not the southern border. We condemn and censure other countries for the fact that they’re assembling nuclear weapons, and yet we’ve got too many to contain in our nuclear storage yards. We ask others to stop enriching uranium, to care for the environment, and are at once dumping tons of enriched uranium into the ocean in Alaska, destroying the environment and killing the wildlife; dumping hundreds of tons of mercury into our rivers, to the point that in states like Michigan and Minnesota people can no longer eat locally-caught fish; and complacently driving our SUVs everywhere. We vilify and anathematize any government that violates human rights, and yet we in the United States violate the most essential and elemental among those rights—the individual’s fundamental right to life—by supporting with vigor and zeal the state-sponsored killing of prisoners, a practice to which our forebears were vehemently opposed. We say we’re for gender equality, and yet our women are still making ten thousand dollars less, on average, than are our men, and they’re still expected to clean, cook, and care for the household in addition to working.

We say we're for putting an end to discrimination, and yet we unanimously pass legislation like the PATRIOT Act—of which there is nothing patriotic—that enables law enforcement to search and detain people on hunches predicated largely on the individual's ethnicity and religion. We urge companies to keep their jobs in the U.S., and yet we continue to pass free trade agreements contrary to the interests of our citizenry, to provide incentives for those corporate entities who decide to outsource their labor; as a result, every customer service call we make is routed to someone in India, doing their best to imitate our accent. We praise and laud the United Nations, and yet at the same time we go to war without UN sanctions and without justification. We speak ill of any government that commits genocide, and yet we’ve killed millions of natives in the process of expansion and now consign the survivors and their families to fallow, infertile, diminutive, and utterly unlivable reserves. We condemn imperialism, and yet we engage in it regularly, subverting governments and obtruding our set of beliefs on them—or, as we like to call it, “spreading democracy.” We are run by an administration that was elected and then re-elected under pretenses of being for “fiscal discipline,” and yet our national budget deficit is nearly tantamount to our gross domestic product.

Explain to me why this is, and explain to me how Ron Paul—or any other self-righteous right-wing curmudgeon, for that matter—will ever address this.

[Vulgotha]

Nebraska made headlines this past week (especially in USA today) for an event which I took part in, involving the Youtube debates.

I just got back from it like 30min ago. Veeeery interesting stuff.. There was less sidestepping then in the Democrat debate, but a bit more edgy comments....

I only state this because I was thinking about the interaction between Hillary and Obama during the Youtube Democratic Debate and i just threw this up on this thread..

[DayWalker]

Nebraska made headlines this past week (especially in USA today) for an event which I took part in, involving the Youtube debates.

I just got back from it like 30min ago. Veeeery interesting stuff.. There was less sidestepping then in the Democrat debate, but a bit more edgy comments....

I only state this because I was thinking about the interaction between Hillary and Obama during the Youtube Democratic Debate and i just threw this up on this thread..

I think its great... the Dems are finally working together and not bashing each other to death and then having no more ammo for the republican hit machine.

and best of all...
Choices!!! We have choices!!!!!
I don't have to vote against someone this time... I can vote for a candidate I like!!!! :D

[Vulgotha]

The Dems are still beating the living crap out of each other. Look at Obama and Clinton.

That's just flatout ugly.


@Tenchi, you may have a point or two in regards to communism. Marx and Friederich Ingles did not envision what communism would become. What it is today.

However, they did not envision it, because their ideal society, this "Utopia" can never exist. They failed to properly take into account the human condition.

Such a society will never exist. Leaders will never relenquish power and control, and this kind economy is always Doomed(censor lol?) to failure. No self respecting and educated economist in the world would call the Socialist market a profitable one.

Even China has become more capitalist in its ways over the years. It just doesn't work.

[DayWalker]

The Dems are still beating the living crap out of each other. Look at Obama and Clinton.

That's just flatout ugly.

... Unless something has happened recently that i missed.

I've thought its been pretty tame...

[Tenchi]

The Dems are still beating the living crap out of each other. Look at Obama and Clinton.

That's just flatout ugly.

Did you not see the YouTube Republican debate tonight? The Democrats look like angels next to that GOP filth. Which testifies to the fact that Democrats will finally regain control of this country in 2008.

"You had illegal immigrants working in your house." ... Thanks, Giuliani. So has every other American.